Urbanisation is making the need to 'own' a car less and less relevant and the lack of basic appeal of so many offerings, mostly resulting from legislation, is not helping. The real future challenge for mass car makers will be falling demand.

"Manufacturers who fail to comply would face fines of €95 (£76) for every gram over target per vehicle."
Do legislators expect "fines" to be passed on to those who buy the cars? It happens in any other sphere you can name.

If they weren't so friggin' expensive I'd run out and but a Vauxhall Ampera today. Maybe a Nissan Leaf is more my kinda budget,

But the Tesla Roadster is more my style ;-)

There is no doubt that legislation provides a massive boost to innovation, and costs fall over time.

At which point the politicians raise the taxes so that they are the ones who get the benefit.

Manufacturers failing to comply would face fines of €95 (£76) for every gram over target per vehicle.

So what would that mean exactly if one was buying a new £250k Ferrari?

The new limit would save European drivers approximately €25bn (£20bn) a year in fuel costs.

Anyone who believes that must have come down in the last shower of rain.

At which point the politicians raise the taxes so that they are the ones who get the benefit.

if you'd take all costs into account car usage is actually subsidized at the moment. there's still a lot of room for taxing car usage until we hit the fair contribution line.

Do legislators expect "fines" to be passed on to those who buy the cars? It happens in any other sphere you can name.

Yes, making that brand of cars more expensive than competitors who met the target. So there is a competitive advantage to meeting the target. Unlike water companies, rail franchises, DNOs etc, the likes of Ford, Nissan and Fiat do not have localised monopolies.

if you'd take all costs into account car usage is actually subsidized at the moment. there's still a lot of room for taxing car usage until we hit the fair contribution line.

Really? Tell me more... how are cars subsidised? What is the fair contribution line for cars? What is it for bicycles?

Here is an energy saving idea. Eliminate distribution of paper newspapers by 2013.

Yeah, he's right, MrPiggles, car useage is pretty heavily subsidised at the mo. It's in the 2k bung of the scrappage scheme, plus all those roads and motorways and oil wars. Hard to work out a "fair contribution line", it becomes a political question - if this sort of stuff were just economics we'd be grouping together and buying our petrol in the USA and shipping it over.

So what would that mean exactly if one was buying a new £250k Ferrari?

Very little, but fortunately supercars are built in such small numbers and generally not driven that much that they are an irrelevance to the environmental impact of road vehicles as a whole.

The important thing is decarbonising ordinary road transport rather than worrying about a handful of exotics.

Very little, but fortunately supercars are built in such small numbers and generally not driven that much that they are an irrelevance to the environmental impact of road vehicles as a whole.

I suppose the same must apply to private jets too, which is why it's OK for Al Gore etc. to jet around the world all the time, but it's not OK for the little guy to nip over to Spain for a fortnight once a year.

Yeah, he's right, MrPiggles, car useage is pretty heavily subsidised at the mo. It's in the 2k bung of the scrappage scheme, plus all those roads and motorways and oil wars.

He's right, though. Even once you factor in the cost of roads, accidents, pollution, and wars, there is still a net gain to the exchequer from taxes on road transport which is why governments like it so much.

Unfortunately that's the same reason that public transport and cycling has been so neglected over the years, because to the government, they appear as net costs.

Fortunately, this has meant that our petrol prices are less prone to price shocks than in less heavily taxed countries and our vehicles tend to be more efficient.

if this sort of stuff were just economics we'd be grouping together and buying our petrol in the USA and shipping it over.

At which point you would be charged fuel duty and VAT on top of the cost of buying American petrol and shipping it here which would make it considerably more expensive than buying from a UK supplier. Our basic cost of petrol is actually pretty low in this country.

Stats please - from a reliable source (i.e. not DETR, Green Party etc etc)

Or its just conjecture and bullshit.

According to a well known car magazine, the EU is planning to cave in to car manufacturers demands for laxer legislation.

Reply to TurningTide

7 June 2012 10:34PM
Response to Chronos, 7 June 2012 10:29PM

>''I suppose the same must apply to private jets too, which is why it's OK for Al Gore etc. to jet around the world all the time, but it's not OK for the little guy to nip over to Spain for a fortnight once a year.''<

Exactly who said its not OK for the little guy to go to Spain once a year? Ignore them. Its about seriously investing in low carbon technology, smart legislation and breakthrough fuels and design. When it comes to inducing change, ingenuity, intelligence and optimism are always far more effective than hand wringing, despair and pessimism. Thats why the EU should stick to this target.

I wouldn't be too concerned about the carmakers' claims that this will hurt their industry. Every time a new regulation is proposed in the US, the carmakers scream that they can't possibly, it will raise the cost of cars by thousands of dollars and drive them into bankruptcy and destroy the economy, on and on and on. They spend more fighting the regulation than they would have done by implementing it. This has happened every time, from seat belts to anti-lock brakes to catalytic converters, you name it. Then, after they've been forced to adopt the safety or anti-pollution change anyway, they come back about a year later with an ad campaign saying, "Look at the wonderful change we've made to our cars for your health and safety! Aren't we just too good to be true?" Every time. Every single time.

Every time a new regulation is proposed in the US, the carmakers scream that they can't possibly, it will raise the cost of cars by thousands of dollars and drive them into bankruptcy

Perhaps you might like to comment on the finances of the US car industry in the last 4 years?

I'm not a petrol head at all but I believe this really is so pointless if it's part of the overall carbon picture. Yes driving less and technology where economically practical can and should be used. Also the removal of local pollutants detrimental to human health (which CO2 and many nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen compounds are not).

However many practical technologies work best and most economically on large, immobile sources of carbon like buildings and industry. The benefits of these scale up considerably. The 12% or so emissions from private motor vehicles are simply too small a part of the picture for an economic return on the technology. I get the impression it's rather easier to offload the cost on a public conscious of their consumption at the point of use than anything else. Ultimately if you are going to use fossil fuels at all, then as a lightweight, energy dense and fairly safe medium, oil is great for transport.

How about a cost/benefit analysis about investing the same sorts of costs into de-carbonising or replacing power generation? What would we get for our ROI? I'm slightly suspicious of this being "low hanging fruit" rather than a serious move environmentally.

This is a small slow step in the right direction. A better way would be to tax gas, oil, coal and peat instead of income up to the average wage. This would put a lot of money into people's pockets there by allowing market forces to power the change to a sustainable future.

Ferrari is a part of the Fiat Group, and as such, given that Fiat manufacture a lot more Fiat 500s with emissions well below the target, the profligacy of the Ferrari's exhausts are wiped out across the whole group.

This is the reason why Aston Martin re-badge Toyota IQs - the only thing I cant figure out is what sort of a muppet does it take to buy an IQ with an Aston badge for over £30k.

So we'll get more expensive cars with smaller engines which are either completely gutless or prone to expensive failures due to greater complexity? Hooray! Truly we are blessed by our wise and benevolent leaders.

So we'll get more expensive cars with smaller engines which are either completely gutless or prone to expensive failures due to greater complexity? Hooray! Truly we are blessed by our wise and benevolent leaders.

Utter utter tripe.

Honda, for instance, introduced the VTEC system which was vastly more intricate than anything else manufactured at the time (and which in various manifestations has been copied by practically all other manufacturers in the world), and:

1, it is more powerful for a given engine capacity;

2 uses considerably less fuel; and

3 since introduction, and after several 10s of millions of systems produced has not suffered a single failure during the warranty period - how many other engine manufacturers can claim that?

Well, we have become so used to the motor lobby telling us that fuel is very, very expensive, that perhaps our confusion is understandable. But you do have the numbers to demonstrate you know better don't you? Care to share them with us?

This should not only reduce CO2 output but also improve air quality which has become noticeably worse over recent years. Some cities are becoming so polluted that any failure to reduce emissions from cars would have sooner or later have forced authorities to ban cars entering the city or put up with a great increase in respiratory problems.

Well, we have become so used to the motor lobby telling us that fuel is very, very expensive, that perhaps our confusion is understandable. But you do have the numbers to demonstrate you know better don't you? Care to share them with us?

Just use your brain, smoggy. The government gets a heck of a lot of money of motorists in the form of fuel taxes. If we all switch to cars that are more fuel efficient or use a different type of fuel, you can be sure that changes will be made to the tax regime ensure the govt's revenue doesn't drop.

Exactly who said its not OK for the little guy to go to Spain once a year?

People such as the authors of "Zero Carbon Britain" (although, to be fair, they'd also stop Al Gore from flying in his private jet).

I find the idea that anyone could predict the behavior of George Osborne in this way quite comical.

I think Boris Johnson has already shown that the Tories will accept an increase in respiratory problems: seems like we have to rely on those nasty EU people to protect our health.

but could Suburbanisation be increasing car demand?

Reply to TurningTide

8 June 2012 12:32PM
Response to quarrytone, 8 June 2012 1:54AM

>'' ''Exactly who said its not OK for the little guy to go to Spain once a year?''

People such as the authors of "Zero Carbon Britain" (although, to be fair, they'd also stop Al Gore from flying in his private jet).''<

Of course there are extremist calls on all sides. Such calls are counterproductive, they drive negative and cynical reactions to real science from ordinary folk. Realism is key. As was proven during the 2nd WW what seams impossible is sometimes achievable, but it takes optimism, political courage and crucially ingenuity. As a species we're capable of incredible things when push comes to shove. It may well take a shove from more palpable, irrefutable climate impacts, or it may not. But our trajectory is clear, if not our pace.

With a will, suitable investment, science can achieve remarkable things. It may well be possible to develop a carbon neutral jet fuel (a real one, not a fake one), assuming jet travel takes precedence in a globalized world.

It's called digging up as much car-hating propaganda as possible, even though the reality is that only part of the fuel duty mugged from the motorists goes back into underinvesting in roads, public transport and walking and cycling infrastructure.

Imaging how shagged government finances would be if all of us stopped driving...and a lot of us would be out of work because we'd not be able to get there either..because of the wonders of public transport.

If we applied this logic elsewhere, we could say the eating fast food is subsidised (fatty tax anyone?) and ladders are subsidised (the NHS costs of dealing with falls and so on) and other endless examples where many everyday products in the same vein could well be 'subsidised'. Plus those who like to hate anything with a combustion engine will no doubt overlook any benefits.

Reports yesterday suggest that your own kitchen has worse indoor air pollution than the side of the street. Maybe we should ban people having kitchens as well?

Will anyone in Europe 2020 be able to afford a new car? It'll do wonders for the classic car market, people will be able to flaunt their wealth by driving old gas guzzlers in concourse condition.

Have car prices ever been cheaper in real terms?

"Have car prices ever been cheaper in real terms?"

Probably not judging by my inbox.LOL

I find the idea that anyone could predict the behavior of George Osborne in this way quite comical.

The idea that a big reduction in fuel costs to the motorist (and the corresponding fall in govt. revenues) would be met with equanimity by George Osbourne seems laughably naive to me.

Yeah, but I never said that.

I doubt we will ever see a fall in fuel costs because oil prices are going to spiral upwards. But that only makes the benefit of increased fuel economy the greater.

Do you have a crystal ball?

Remember when, a few short months ago, the whole planet was panicked about cripplingly high oil prices? That’s changed in a hurry. Crude prices are now plummeting. Oil in London is trading for $96 per barrel, way down from $126 back in February.

Yeah, but I never said that.

But you did apparently find the idea that George Osborne would take steps to counteract any fall in revenue from fuel taxes "comical". It seems like basic common sense to me.

Yeah, but many things you think are common sense seem comical to me. Even your failure to recall what has been said in the past is comical: I never said Osborne wouldn't find ways to counteract any fall in revenue. YOU were saying drivers would see no benefit, the implication being that he'd raise fuel duty, whereas on current performace he's more likely to target grannies.

I didn't say he'd raise fuel duty, smoggy, I said "changes will be made to the tax regime".

No, but I do understand the laws of supply and demand. Grats for pointing out your everlasting fixation with short term noise: its not just global temperatures with you then.

There's a limited supply of oil and the demand for it is going up in the long term, even if nerves about the eurozone cause a drop right now. Economists even worry that any economic recovery - when it comes - will be limited by the rise in oil prices that will accompany it.

If you really think $96 is low, then lets just look at the historical trend. You don't need a crystal ball to see what's coming. Or are you banking on the collapse of the world economy?

Yeah but unless he's raising fuel duty your original comment becomes nonsensical:

TurningTide
7 June 2012 8:00PM

The new limit would save European drivers approximately €25bn (£20bn) a year in fuel costs.

Anyone who believes that must have come down in the last shower of rain.

So yes it will save drivers 25bn a year after all? Because you weren't saying Osborne would raise fuel duty?

TurningTide
8 June 2012 12:30PM

Response to Smogbound, 8 June 2012 12:05PM

Well, we have become so used to the motor lobby telling us that fuel is very, very expensive, that perhaps our confusion is understandable. But you do have the numbers to demonstrate you know better don't you? Care to share them with us?

Just use your brain, smoggy. The government gets a heck of a lot of money of motorists in the form of fuel taxes. If we all switch to cars that are more fuel efficient or use a different type of fuel, you can be sure that changes will be made to the tax regime ensure the govt's revenue doesn't drop.

OK, if you are saying you original comment was nonsensical that's fine: just don't waste my time in future puh-lease.

Especially the Daily Mail :-)

Regulation, rigid by nature, too often adds undue complexity and costs, or limits flexibility," said ACEA, the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association, in a statement calling for "smarter" regulation.

the industry needs independantly investigating for fraud/ deception if they....

>>>The EC wants to limit the average emissions of vehicles sold in 2020 by a manufacturer to 95 grams of CO2 per kilometre travelled. It is currently about 140g CO2/km and there is already a binding limit of 130g CO2/km set for 2015.<<<<<

.....think that .is the best they can do???
the more you dilute the nasty fossil fuel with clean green fuel the better emissions results.

Biodiesel for example will give the same NOx emissions as fossil diesel but if you introduce hydrogen or a water mist that NOx level will at least halve

Industry just need to make amendments to the ECU...... Once they have an engine management computer capable (.....read..... PROGRAMMED) of allowing for......
Hydrogen methane HHO (Oxyhydrogen) Biodiesel
........Clean fuels, then we will have a significant global drop in car/truck/bike emissions

until they do that they are just jerking off. Programmers elbow??

The EC wants to limit the average emissions of vehicles sold in 2020 by a manufacturer to 95 grams of CO2 per kilometre travelled. It is currently about 140g CO2/km and there is already a binding limit of 130g CO2/km set for 2015.

I'd like to know exactly what this means. Is it an average of each model of car sold by a manufacturer or is it an average calculated from their total car sales? This matters as if it's the former manufacturers could produce token low emissions options with low sales to compensate for their high emission cars without the actual emissions from their vehicles on mass changing significantly.

I'd like to know exactly what this means. Is it an average of each model of car sold by a manufacturer or is it an average calculated from their total car sales?

It seems to be the 'European fleet of cars' i.e. total sales from all manufacturers. So the likes of Fiat could be helping the mass-market luxury car makers in effect.

NB there is an exemption for 'niche market' car makers of '45% below their 2007' emissions.

I wouldn't touch an electric or hybrid piece of junk with a barge pole. They are the devils work, and the ultimate ruiner of driving pleasure. The internal combustion engine is a true art form. I love classic vehicles like the Triumph Stag, E-type Jaguar, Audi Quattro, Jenson Interceptor, Rolls Royce Silver Spur, 1959 Caddy etc.

They are stunning machines and I don't want some electric pile of tripe with no automotive soul ruining it. Cars are hardly a causer of pollution anyway, I reckon Power Stations, like Drax nearby to me is way, way, way more harmful than all of the cars in my count, after all its one of the Biggest Power Station in Europe.

Its gonna be soon the end of the V12 and V8 OMG what is the world coming to? If you can afford a luxury vehicle surely manufactures must think well they can afford the fuel in it.

We don't even have 110% certainty that global warming even exists, temperatures have been climbing and rising, all through the earth's history. I am pretty certain though that this pollution is not good for human health if it continues, but is it really a problem for our planet itself? I'm not convinced.